Brothers Doug and David Blank discuss the issues of the day. One is a Christian, ER doctor, and member of the tea party; the other is an atheist, computer scientist, and liberal arts professor. How did this happen, and what do they have to say?

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

March Madness and Title IX

David:
As we enjoy the thrill of the NCAA college basketball tourney, I thought we might reflect on how Title IX, which was designed to increase opportunities for women in higher education, has been misused to eliminate some men's athletic programs, and now is leading to the expulsion of young men across the country from college without due process.

Doug:
March madness... that's basketball, right? I don't really know very much about Title IX, or any Titles for that matter. How has it been misused?

David:
Wow.

Of course, you do work at an all-girls school, so the impacts of Title IX have less of an impact for you, so I'll give you a slight pass. However....

Title IX was introduced in the Senate in 1972 by Indiana's then-senator Birch Bayh. The intention was to eliminate discrimination against women in higher education. But the wording in the bill has allowed the Department of Education to extend the original intent to encompass a great many things that were unintended. (No surprise there. A government bill that is poorly written, that depends on a government agency to regulate the bill, that then has unintended consequences. And history repeats itself....)

Doug:
I work at an "all-women's college." How do you know what was intended when the bill was written? Perhaps this was the intention. I haven't read any bills, so I have no idea what a poorly written one would look like.

David:
I'd describe an all-male school as "all-boys", so, no slight is intended unless you're looking to be offended.

Doug:
That isn't how offending slights work, but do continue.David:
I know what was intended because Congress had many committee meetings and conferences delineating exactly what they intended. College sports was one concern that was addressed. However, once the bill was passed, the Department of Education decided sports should be included anyway. The language of the bill was not specific enough to reign in the regulations, so that is why I say the bill was poorly written. This is what it actually says:"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."
The language sounds simple enough, but was used by the Department of Education (DoE) to extend it's reach into areas that were specifically to be off-limits in the bill.

Doug:
There goes those inanimate government agencies "reaching" again... They do a lot of that in your imagination. How does one know what is "off-limits in the bill"?

David:
When a bill is "open-ended" like this one, it can be hard to tell. That's why the trend during the last few decades of allowing employees at various agencies to create regulations, instead of writing specific language into legislation, is lazy legislation, and can lead to many unintended consequences. These agencies are not "inanimate". They are made up of many people, some with agendas, and almost all un-elected and unaccountable.

David:
College athletics, which was supposed to be excused from Title IX, was the first victim of Title IX.

Doug:
Victim? Wow, I really should know about this! Victims! Wait... college athletics is another inanimate agency.

David:
Because of the wording of the regulations, there needs to be equity of access to sports for women and men. Because you can't make women get in involved in sports if they don't want to be involved, this parity rule ended up causing colleges and universities to cancel men's programs. Men's soccer, track and field, cross-country, and gymnastics have all been eliminated at schools across the country. Women do have more opportunities for sports than before, but some of it has been at the expense of men's programs.

Doug:
Ok, that all sounds great. What is the problem?

David:
Let's say that schools need to have the same percentage of women in science courses as they do men. As many women do not choose to major in these sciences, the correlation to our discussion would be for schools to limit how many men can enroll in these classes. That isn't right. The goal is to eliminate barriers for women, not to punish men. But that is how the Left works: Don't focus on opportunity, but make sure the outcomes are equal.

Doug:
That would be great to require that all schools have the same percentages of men and women in all classrooms across the board. That would go a long way to making things fair.

David:
I'm surprised you have not heard of the hundreds of investigations that are now ongoing across the US of sexual assaults on campus. This is the new territory the DoE is expanding into, under a new interpretation of Title IX.

Doug:
I have heard much about sexual assaults on campuses.

David:
Young men are accused of sexual assault, and then expelled from colleges and universities without trial, or without evidence of wrongdoing. This is being done due to pressure from the federal government. Perhaps you just were unaware that all of this is based on the Department of Education's directives under the guise of Title IX?

Doug:
I think you meant to say "boys" to be parallel with "girls"... unless there is some implicit bias going on. Whoa... that is some mighty opinionated writing! You do realize that that is commentary, not a news story right? And the links in it are to other commentary from right-wing writers?

David:
You can find articles explaining the "Dear Colleague..." letters that were sent out by the DoE all over the internet.

Doug:
I can only find cat videos all over the internet.

David:
These letters mandate that colleges have to act as courts, or lose funding and face fines. Perhaps left-wingers celebrate skipping the courts (and all of that mumbo-jumbo about evidence or proof), and just go straight to a verdict of "guilty", which is what is now happening.

Here is a very nice post that explains how the new "rules" impacted the University of North Carolina:

The schools are also at risk when they act, as these expulsions of exclusively male students are now being successfully challenged in courts, with big financial penalties being paid out by the schools.

Doug:
I'm trying to understand what you are upset about. Is it that people should always be able to defend themselves before being found guilty? That sounds like a fine principle to defend. Sexual assault is a terrible crime, and should be prosecuted by the law, not handled by colleges. However, proving sexual assault in a court of law may be difficult. Colleges and universities may be in a tough place between protecting people from sexual assault, and protecting the innocent from false accusations.

David:
That is exactly my point. The Department of Education's mandates have now put colleges in a position where they must act as a court, jury, and judge, but they are not allowed to function in the manner of a court. Sexual assault is a crime, and should be handled by the legal system, not the educational system. Using Title IX to try to force colleges to perform in this way is wrong.Doug:
Sexual assault is a sensitive issue. If you want to work with me to find better ways of making college campuses less dangerous for women, count me in!

Regarding the "mean tweets"... I would kick any student out of my school if they were saying mean things about another student. At Bryn Mawr College, we have an honor code, and I suspect that such actions would be grounds for expulsion.

David:
Right. And who gets to decide what is "mean"? If I say your argument is "ridiculous", could I get expelled? If I say your argument is "moronic", could I get expelled for being too mean? There is the First Amendment, which protects all speech, not just flowery compliments.

Doug:
You don't have a first amendment right to go to college, unfortunately. At Bryn Mawr College, a student would turn herself in for such a violation. In any event, I don't see that Title IX has much to do with this, except for generating the motivation for helping solve the problem of sexual assaults. That is good, right?

David:
Once again, you prove my point. Title IX should not have anything to do with any of this. If the Department of Education wants to highlight sexual assaults in higher education, they should do that through educational programs. Using fines or loss of funding to force schools to act as a court of law is placing schools in a "tough place" for sure. Using it to eliminate opportunities in sports for men is also wrong.

Doug:
You mean "boys." Those poor boys. They already have far more opportunities than the girls, but they want all of the opportunities.

David:
But when Congressmen and women leave decision making up to government agencies, instead of taking responsibility for the language of the bills themselves, unintended consequences follow.